This [legal] definition of “gender identity” does not require any objective proof. … a person asserting gender identity as a basis to avoid “discrimination” must be permitted to use the rest room or bath house of their chosen “gender identity” – without regard to any action taken on the part of that individual to change their physiology to “become female” (i.e., sex reassignment surgery.)

…

These definitions – like the Rhode Island definition and like the definitions cited in the endnotes to this communication – provide no objective standard by which to assess the legitimacy of the “gender identity.” These definitions would allow all males – including registered sex offenders or males subject to a domestic violence order of protection – to assert “gender identity” as a means to invade female-only space. Indeed, these laws provide a legal basis for being in sex-segregated space. It is well-documented that males as a class have a demonstrated history of harming females as a class by exploiting female biology (i.e., rape, sexual violence, unwanted pregnancy). Definitions of “gender identity” that permit the individual to “self-identify” without any duration or medical documentation requirements present the potential for a human rights abuse against all females.[xxix]

My bold. We clearly and plainly advocated the use of objective criteria including duration and medical documentation to prove “gender identity” under the law. We suggested that this would serve as a fraud prevention measure against male sexual predators who will forseeably leverage “gender identity” to fulfill their improper purposes. Regarding our concerns about sex-based male violence, here is a loooooooong and updated list of men masquerading as women with criminal intent.

Footnote 15 of the UN letter provides the definition of “gender identity” that Brennan and Hungerford would support:

[xxx] We fully support anti-discrimination protections for transgender and transsexual people that do not run rough-shod over laws that protect females. We support the following definition of “gender identity” – a person’s identification with the sex opposite her or his physiology or assigned sex at birth, which can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of a transsexual medical condition, or related condition, as deemed medically necessary by the American Medical Association.” Such a definition would protect the classification of sex, while simultaneously providing a cause of action for discriminatory practices on the basis of a persistent and documented “gender identity.” We welcome people who fit into this definition into space segregated by sex in recognition of their perceived need for access and in the fervent hope that we can achieve such protection for identifiably transgender or transsexual people without harming females.

If that isn’t exceedingly reasonable, I don’t know what is! But the backlash was impressive and enduring. For example, I was banned just a few weeks ago from commenting on the mainstream website RawStory.com because, as editor Roxanne Cooper told me, my reputation as a “transphobe” precedes my actual words. I guess she can add Dana Beyer to that list as well.

Under these new rules any man can claim to be a woman without any evidence of a lived reality and expect to be recognized as such.When this hypothetical was presented by legislators to us advocates, we responded by describing the intricate transition process and acknowledging that the commitment to transition must be engaged before recognition would be offered.

HEY, WAIT A MINUTE. THAT’S WHAT WE SAID!

And wait a minute, that is absolutely NOT the impression Beyer publicly gave to legislators. As the Executive Director of Gender Rights Maryland, Beyer had every opportunity to support a bill that requires the kind of demonstrated commitment to transition she describes above. But Beyer didn’t. She blindly supported the vague, overbroad definition that in Beyer’s own words would allow: “any man to claim to be a woman without any evidence of a lived reality and expect to be recognized as such.” Here is the text of the legislation that Beyer supported:

20–101.

(E) “GENDER IDENTITY” MEANS A GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY, APPEARANCE, EXPRESSION, OR BEHAVIOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.

This is clearly inconsistent with Beyer’s subsequent commentary at Huffington Post, of which there is much more to read– I only gave you the best excerpt. Such contradictions are commonly known as hypocrisy. (See my suggested revision to the Maryland legislation here.)

Next, here is Monica Robertson the B. Scott case (yes, a legal context!) speaking favorably about showing a commitment to transition before one should be considered a member of Team Trans:

So, you see, there’s a lot of talk about what hysterical bigots radical feminist are, but the truth is that in their own wordshigh profile trans-activist transwomen actually agree with us. Whether they will admit it or not. These are their own words. Facts are facts.

44 comments

I really can’t understand what is going on here. The B.Scott case is very obvious discrimination specifically on gender expression, as opposed to gender identity. He was discriminated as a “man in dress” not “man who identifies as a woman (or something other than a man)”.

Why would it even matter whether or not he falls under the transgender umbrella?

By the way, I wonder if this particular definition alleviates your concern. It does not have “regardless of sex”, and it does not define any behaviour or appearance as “related” to sex (only to gender). It has the words “whether or not STEREOTYPICALLY associated”, so the only thing overridden is stereotype. In fact, this is quite close to an express prohibition of sex stereotyping, possibly as close as you can get under a class based legal system. California rocks?

Defines “gender identity or expression” as a gender-related identity, expression, appearance, or behavior of a person regardless of their assigned sex at birth (Sec. 1).

Establishes that it is unlawful practice for an employer or an employment agency to fail or refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against any person with respect to the person’s gender identity or expression (Sec. 7).

Authorizes employers to require employees to adhere to reasonable workplace appearance, grooming, and dress standards so long as such requirements allow an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee’s gender identity or expression (Sec. 9).

==

So, first it uses a meaningless definition of expression which does not separate it from identity and includes the words “regardless of sex” that you hate. Then it makes an exception for “grooming”, adding “consistent with the employee’s gender identity or expression” – but that is meaningless for “expression” as it is, by definition, behaviour not identity, so how do you measure consistency? Perhaps one could push something like “butch woman” as a form of “gender expression” under that law, but it’s not easy. The statute is 2013 so there might be a slim chance of overturning Jespersen but it seems to be engineered to minimize it.

Compare California, which expressly describes expression as behaviour, contrasts it to stereotypes (not to sex).

==
(4) Existing law requires an employer to allow an employee to appear
or dress consistently with the employee’s gender identity.
This bill would additionally require an employer to allow an employee
to appear or dress consistently with the employee’s gender expression.
==

With this one, the B.Scott case is a slam dunk? Besides, between this and the definition of gender expression, it actually DOES seem to prohibit sex stereotyping as such! Jespersen would be torn to shreds under this formula.

Note – the California bill is 2011, while Nevada is 2013, so Nevada had access to the work done in California (you can’t copyright laws, thankfully). They intentionally chose to use a worse definition.

My hypothesis is capitalism. California is in the pocket of IT and media makers – thus “leave people alone and don’t stereotype them so their brains and bodies work for us better”. Even if some individual employer gets stung for behaving like a jackass, employers in general win out by having a better workforce; media makers need some sexualized performers but they pay enough to have loads to choose from without forcing the issue.

Nevada is in the pocket of casinos if not the sex industry itself, and they have much more of a stake in enforcing conformance to a sexualized image, including that of lower paid workers. They want to be able to force the issue even if non-conformers end up pushed out of employment and out of the state.

Hi Mikhail/Ramendik, B.Scott was discriminated against on the basis of SEX. Yes, as a “man in a dress” because he is male. If we had formal equality between the sexes, this would be illegal: dress ok for woman=dress ok for man.

The California definition does nothing for me. It still allows someone to “identify” in CONFLICT with their sex. It’s maddening because “gender identity” remains so undefined that I could probably claim a “gender identity” as a “cow” or as a “child” or as a “carrot.” Gender is not definitionally limited to “male/man” and “female/woman,” it can be ANYTHING AT ALL. 😛 Crap defintion.

But on the other hand, you’re right, the law reads like an anti-stereotyping definition because those stereotypes ARE the measurement by which we gauge “gender.” Which is the entire problem with “gender” to begin with…but I repeat myself.

What is the problem with “allowing someone to identify in conflict with their sex”? Would you want to prohibit that sort of SEX-SPECIFIC BEHAVIOUR?

The good part in California law, however, is about “gender expression”, not “gender identity”. Expression is explicitly (unlike Nevada) defined as behaviour and has nothing to do with any identity. And judgement of that behaviour is explicitly describes as sex stereotypes. So, California law on the “expression” part prohibits sex stereotyping in, probably, the best *legislative* way possible under the current system.

California does not take it to the logical conclusion, though. Both “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” become superficial (as discrimination categories) with a consistent application of “gender expression”. “Gender identity” means calling oneself something, “sexual orientation” means having, or wanting to have, sex with someone. Both of these are obviously “behaviour” which is “stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth”. So both should be covered as “gender expression” without creation of separate classes.

But both of these classes were created before AB 887. The logical application would involve repeal of protection legislation, something politically unviable.

Excellent legal analysis! I’m impressed, actually. And I agree, gender “non-conformity” and sexuality non-conformity are both in conflict with things “stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” HETERONORMATIVITY IS THE ROOT.

But I feel like you aren’t understanding me here:

What is the problem with “allowing someone to identify in conflict with their sex”? Would you want to prohibit that sort of SEX-SPECIFIC BEHAVIOUR?

Behavior should never be sex-specific. Ok for man=ok for woman. Ok for male=ok for female.

The problem with PRETENDING TO BE the other sex (you could identify with it, but not CLAIM it for yourself– maybe like anthropolgical researcher or an ex-patriate or something) is the socialization factor and the political erasure of women’s oppression. Women’s oppression happens SOCIALLY. So to pretend that the male social experience is the same as the female social experience is dismissive of our expereince. “When male-born persons can be “women” just the same as female-born persons, the skin-deep veneer of social identity is being substituted for the complex, lifelong process of class-based socialization.” <<From Socialization Matters/Identity Libertarianism

Here's more about that from an unpublished/draft thingy that I work on from time to time:
Post-modern neoliberalism seeks to dismiss the experience of womanhood by claiming that anyone can choose to be a woman. And, in any case, it claims that we are too diverse to be generalized about. An interesting position to take: the class “women” has no defining characteristic, and yet transwomen know exactly what being a “woman” feels like.

The maxim “trans women are women” means at least three things: first, it means that being raised as girl from birth is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman" because one can be a woman without it.

Secondly, it means that having a female body is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without it.

And third, it means that to be a “woman” reflects an individual’s desired relation to the social construct “woman,” rather than a description of the physical and/or cumulative experiential realities of female-born (and certain intersex) people as described above.

This is not true. Women are all subject to the tyranny of compulsory heterosexuality, heteronormativity, and the mutually exclusive social roles of “man” and “woman.” Women have shared life experiences as “girls” and as “women.” Radical feminist theory seeks to expose the ways in which trans theory, like patriarchal reality, denies female self-determination and imposes upon women their own false (read: male-serving) definition OF “woman.”

I am not pretending to deny anyone the right to their theory, as long, of course, as it is not used in incitement to violence, or at least of a degree of hate that might reasonably lead to violence. (There are radical feminists who do cross that threshold, there are trans activists who cross it too, nearly no theory is immune).

The question is whether you want to legislate the theory.

We seem to agree that all behaviour “stereotypically associated with sex” should be, in a perfect system (and California might be getting close) as a general rule protected (that is, non-prosecuteable and not accepted ground for discrimination etc) whatever the actual sex. The discussion is about exceptions from the general rule. One exception you insist upon is access to places involving nudity, because there is a material need for it; no contest to that. Are you insisting on another exception, the use of the word “woman” and possibly of appearance intentionally designed to be perceived as a woman?

On the stealth question, I can’t answer authoritatively. I am not trans and that question is about personal experience. But my suspicion is that not everyone is “built” to be a fighter. Not everyone is ready to sacrifice the possibility of relaxing into a quiet life, after being rid of years of dysphoria, for the hard, though ultimately satisfying. battle of challenging norms. Another possible reason is that without “stealth” many people would find no social contacts at all except in the narrow trans circles – and you, of all people, know these are no paradise.

But I have no experience with any of these limitations, not just because I’m not trans. I *am* a fighter, and got photos on street rallies to prove it (not on that topic). And I am very interested in circles that are accepting of all sorts of variant people without the need for any form of stealth; I see these circles as far better for trans people coming out of the closet that trans-specific, or even GLBT-specific, circles (though have trouble finding these on the British Isles – probably need to try the Rainbow Gathering).

However, even a transsexual person who is not “stealth” will generally want to be perceived as the other sex in *casual* social interaction. Not stealth does not mean wearing it on one’s sleeve.

I understand that there are a lot of gradations of passing and even that someone might pass in New York City but not in Savvanah, Georgia. Or vice versa. And that some people might UNINTENTIONAL passas in the case of a very “butch” woman. The difference is in intent, I think, because the butch woman still uses the female bathroom, right? But the trans person INTENDS TO DECEIVE. It’s not maliscious (unless improper purpose), but INTENT DOES MATTER UNDER THE LAW. And I don’t think that is legislating theory, I think it is consistent with social customs/status quo/truth as default. I think it makes sense and that genital-deception is the proposal that is in the wrong.

Now, about the fighting thing. Yeah, I get that. I totally understand SURVIVAL. And I understand that we need some WAY for people to survive in this awful gender binary. Here’s what I wrote back in March:

As far as I’m concerned, anyone who confuses sex with gender is transphobic. Because the dissonance of non-conformity is just too scandalous for them to endure. And you know, I get that. I understand survival, and I understand the legal fictions that have been created to allow people to legally “change” sex.

But let’s be clear: someone lying about their sex for the purposes of social survival is totally different than telling the whole world that it’s natural. And that “changing sexes” is a healthy and medically necessary thing to do because there is something neurologically wrong with that person. Females who identity with masculinity are not actually male; males who identify with femininity are not actually female. Brain sex does not exist.

That’s the bottom line. Do what you gotta do, fine, but don’t tell me that it is harmless to the individual OR to society. And don’t tell me that we need to ENABLE people to do this more easily. No. We need to DESTROY and DECONSTRUCT the false connection between bodies and behavior that requires certain behavior from certain people and prevents them from being UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS who should be judged on their individual merits– NOT on preconcevied ideas about who they are based on some association with a group of people. It is the RIGID SOCIAL structure that we change. PLEASE. Death to gender.

Intent and bathrooms are two different things. But yes, I know intent matters under the law.

Where I think you might be trying to “legislate theory” revolves around legislating your belief that “genital deception” in general social interaction is wrong.

Whatever about sexual interaction, in non-sexual scenarios, excluding public nudity and certain private noncommercial gatherings (as “commerce” is the basis for regulation), there is NO valid basis for penalizing the act of “genital deception” or enabling discrimination based on it. Your belief that it is wrong is only a moral view, to which you do have the right.

I am genuinely surprised by your reference to social customs. Legislation based on social customs is the hallmark of the conservative, in the original sense of the word (before it started to mean “bomb more”). In fact, you are radically opposed to social customs concerning gender. Why would “consistence with social customs” carry any weight with you at all?

The rest of your last passage is, again, very much like what certain moderate homophobes I know say. After citing things like prevalence of AIDS, they say “go ahead, do what you need to do, but don’t tell me it’s harmless for individual or for society”. I do wonder what your answer to that statement would be, because mine has to do with individual freedom TRUMPING social concern – a position you do not share.

“We seem to agree that all behaviour “stereotypically associated with sex” should be, in a perfect system (and California might be getting close) as a general rule protected (that is, non-prosecuteable and not accepted ground for discrimination etc) whatever the actual sex. ”

What does this sentence mean? California doesn’t even believe that female students exist. I know this is an outrageous statement, but it’s true. With one sentence, female as a distinct class of persons has been erased. AB1266 was authored by Tom Ammiano and Mark Leno. I’m a female, and I no longer exist. This is what the State of California is telling its female students.

AB1266 ERASES SEX AS A CLASS AND ACTUALLY AMENDS SECTION 221.5 OF THE EDUCATION CODE THAT WAS HISTORICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX.

An act to amend Section 221.5 of the Education Code, relating to pupil rights.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 221.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:

221.5.

(a) It is the policy of the state that elementary and secondary school classes and courses, including nonacademic and elective classes and courses, be conducted, without regard to the sex of the pupil enrolled in these classes and courses.
(b) A school district may not prohibit a pupil from enrolling in any class or course on the basis of the sex of the pupil, except a class subject to Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 51930) of Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2.
(c) A school district may not require a pupil of one sex to enroll in a particular class or course, unless the same class or course is also required of a pupil of the opposite sex.
(d) A school counselor, teacher, instructor, administrator, or aide may not, on the basis of the sex of a pupil, offer vocational or school program guidance to a pupil of one sex that is different from that offered to a pupil of the opposite sex or, in counseling a pupil, differentiate career, vocational, or higher education opportunities on the basis of the sex of the pupil counseled. Any school personnel acting in a career counseling or course selection capacity to a pupil shall affirmatively explore with the pupil the possibility of careers, or courses leading to careers, that are nontraditional for that pupil’s sex. The parents or legal guardian of the pupil shall be notified in a general manner at least once in the manner prescribed by Section 48980, in advance of career counseling and course selection commencing with course selection for grade 7 so that they may participate in the counseling sessions and decisions.
(e) Participation in a particular physical education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex, shall be available to pupils of each sex.
(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Section 221.5 of the Education Code was historically designed to address sex based discrimination. From a historical and practical perspective, conflating sex with gender identity seems clumsy, is unworkable, and flies in the face of common sense. Intuitively, we sense that something is terribly amiss. Are we to believe that a female student taking a carpentry or automotive class is the same thing, or on par with a male using the girl’s locker room or shower? This is what the State of California would have its citizens believe. Under Section 221.5, a female student is discriminated against if she isn’t allowed to take a shop class, and under Section 221.5, a biological male student is being discriminated against if he can’t use the girl’s restroom, shower, or locker room. Under Section 221.5, a female student is discriminated against if she can’t take a drafting class, and under 221.5, a 6’10” 200 lb. biological male is discriminated against if he can’t play on the girls’ basketball team. This only make sense if we believe that biological sex is irrelevant, and for all practical purposes, non-existent.

Please note that 221.5 (a) through (e) uses the word “sex” as in biological sex. Then, 221.5 (f) only refers to “gender” and “gender identity”. Is the State of California stating that “gender identity” is the same thing as biological sex? If so, when did this occur?

This is rather confusing in that the State of California acknowledges that discrimination based on sex exists, or has existed. Then, with one sentence, the biological reality of sex, the entire history of women’s oppression, and thousands of years of systemic and widespread discrimination based on sex are completely erased from existence as if female as a class never existed. Gender identity is clearly given preference over sex. Indeed, for all practical purposes, gender identity overrides sex.

Perhaps the most odious form of sex discrimination is the process whereby the female sex is treated as an invisible non-person, lacking in meaningful substance or history. If “gender identity” is the exact same thing as biological sex, then sex is essentially rendered meaningless, irrelevant, devoid of significance, merit, history, or acknowledgement. What does it say to female students when their thoughts, feelings, opinions, and life experiences are erased from existence in such a caviler fashion? Who cares about female students who might feel extremely awkward, embarrassed, and fearful sharing a restroom or locker room with a fifteen or sixteen year old boy? Rational citizens of the state aren’t allowed to ask such questions.

A biological female cannot change her DNA or the fact that she has a female reproductive system, menstruates, and can get pregnant. A person of African American ancestry cannot change his or her genetic inheritance. Also, a physically disabled student with a genetic disorder cannot change his or her DNA and medical condition. However, “gender identity” is changeable, and often open for interpretation depending on how one chooses to define him or herself.

“Currently experts can’t tell apart kids who outgrow gender dysphoria (desisters) from those who don’t (persisters), and how to treat them is controversial.”

“Treatment of extremely gender variant children will continue to remain controversial since some underlying assumptions of the clinicians are a matter of opinion rather than of empirical data and empirical studies (e.g., clinical trials with random treatment assignment) are neither feasible nor ethical. I wish to conclude by raising some points for the clinicians treating these children to consider:
1. There is no empirical evidence (i.e., controlled study) demonstrating that discouraging childhood cross-gender interests reduces the frequency of persistence into adolescence and adulthood.
2. Since no clinician can accurately predict the future gender identity of any particular child, efforts to discourage cross-gender identifications may be experienced as hurtful and possibly even traumatic by children who do persist into adolescence and adulthood.
3. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that a prepubescent child who is permitted to transition gender role but then desists can simply and harmlessly transition back to the natal gender.”

4. Since no clinician can accurately predict the future gender identity of any particular child, efforts to encourage public early childhood cross-gender roles may be experienced as hurtful and possibly even traumatic by children who do not persist into adolescence and adulthood.”

Does this sound confusing? Who can we make heads or tails of it? Persisters, or children who don’t outgrow gender dysphoria, might experience hurtful feelings and trauma if people try to change cross-gender behaviors. On the other hand, desisters, or children who outgrow their gender dysphoria, might be traumatized by efforts to encourage public early childhood cross-gender roles. That is, a male child who was referred to as “she” for years is now confused and hurt once he goes back to identifying as a boy. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence that says that transitioning back to the sex one is born into is easy and doesn’t come with its own challenges. How will the ten year old boy who identifies as a girl feel when he is eighteen? No one knows for sure, but there has to be a law that says he, rather she, can join the girls in the locker room while he works on his gender identity issues.

“Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality.”

A simple online google search turns up several examples of children who struggled with gender dysphoria, and later changed their minds as they matured.

‘I was born a boy, became a girl, and now I want to be a boy again’: Britain’s youngest sex swap patient to reverse her sex change treatment
October 29, 2012

Below is a link to a MTV video of a young man who identified as a girl and now wants to return to being a man. Also, in the MTV video, a young woman who once identified as a boy changed her mind and returned to being a girl. The young man who appears to be in his early twenties discusses having his breast implants removed. In the same MTV video, the young woman who looks like she could be in her mid-twenties is shown undergoing laser treatments to remove the facial hair that was caused by earlier testosterone use.

http://www.mtv.com/videos/true-life-im-questioning-my-gender-again/1704884/playlist.jhtml
Detransitioning stories are easy to run across on the internet. Transitioning essentially means the process whereby one changes his or her outward appearance to match or coincide with how one identifies or feels internally. Transitioning usually involves cross-gender hormones and surgery. Detransitioning is the opposite of transitioning, and there are numerous examples of people stopping cross-gender hormones. Testosterone is commonly referred to as “T” and FTM means female to male.

“We seem to agree that all behaviour “stereotypically associated with sex” should be, in a perfect system (and California might be getting close) as a general rule protected (that is, non-prosecuteable and not accepted ground for discrimination etc) whatever the actual sex. ”

Stereotypes associated with race or disability are usually seen as repugnant. I wasn’t aware that they should be protected and non-prosecutable? I believe behavior stereotypically associated with sex” (or any other innate characteristic such as race or disability) should be, in a perfect system, as “prosecutable” as any other form of discrimination.

I want to return to AB1266 which all but erases sex as a distinct class.

BY ITS ACTIONS, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RISKS CODIFYING SEX BASED STEREOTYPES INTO LAW POTENTIALLY VIOLATING ITS OWN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS.

Stereotypes based on any inherited or genetic trait such as skin color, physical disability, or biological sexes are offensive.

When an eleven or twelve year old boy says that he is a “girl”, or identifies as a “girl” what does this mean? He could say that he likes to draw, hates sports, likes wearing the color pink, and enjoys playing with his sister. Does this make him a “girl’, or is he just a boy who enjoys non-traditional play and dress? Isn’t it possible that this male child is really just a boy who prefers activities traditionally associated with girls? He might associate traditional “feminine” behavior with being a “girl”. As we all know, sex based stereotypes also apply to females. For example, girls are supposed to like dolls, dresses, and makeup. Girls who have short hair and prefer building blocks to dolls really can’t be girls. Is the State of California applying the following logic and thought processes to its schools? Society says that girls like X, and I like X, therefore I’m a girl. Our culture says that boys like Y, and I like Y, therefore I’m a boy. Isn’t this sexist on its face? This strikes at the heart of who really is a “girl” and who really is a “boy”, and how society constructs the meaning of “girl” or “boy” and “man” and “woman”. Sex is a biological reality whereas “gender identity” is largely culturally defined.

There is no logical and consistent way to completely ferret out the “gender identity” from cultural stereotypes of what constitutes socially acceptable masculine and feminine behavior. No matter what the State of California does and doesn’t do, it cannot prove that each and every child who identifies as being of the opposite sex isn’t doing so wholly or partly because of culturally based sex stereotypes.

“I am not pretending to deny anyone the right to their theory, as long, of course, as it is not used in incitement to violence, or at least of a degree of hate that might reasonably lead to violence. (There are radical feminists who do cross that threshold, there are trans activists who cross it too, nearly no theory is immune).

The question is whether you want to legislate the theory.”

I’m rather incensed by the comment, “The question is whether you want to legislate the theory.” AB1266 legislates a theory which so utterly conflates sex with “gender identity” that the reality of biological sex is rendered non-existent. AB1266 is nothing but legislating a theory. Indeed, it’s legislating a theory in a grand, pompous, Orwellian fashion. The legislators are completely secure in the belief that their theory is right.

“Post-modern neoliberalism seeks to dismiss the experience of womanhood by claiming that anyone can choose to be a woman. And, in any case, it claims that we are too diverse to be generalized about. An interesting position to take: the class “women” has no defining characteristic, and yet transwomen know exactly what being a “woman” feels like.

The maxim “trans women are women” means at least three things: first, it means that being raised as girl from birth is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without it.

Secondly, it means that having a female body is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without it.

And third, it means that to be a “woman” reflects an individual’s desired relation to the social construct “woman,” rather than a description of the physical and/or cumulative experiential realities of female-born (and certain intersex) people as described above.”

Mikhail Ramendik, ALL LAWS are based on social customs. Taboo against murder? Social custom. Taboo against stealing? Social custom. Private property ownership? Social custom. Contract enforcement? Social custom. The LAW itself is a social construct, ffs!

Some social customs are worth protecting and enforcing, while others are not. We must be able to identify criteria to evaluate whether a social custom is worth keeping or not. I have given you multiple complex reasons why I think that lying about genitals is a problem, namely impregnation and the effects of gendered socialization from birth. Not to mention the reduction of “woman” to a skin-deep social veneer that dismisses and makes invisible lived female reality and the mechanics of female oppression.

“Social customs are indefensible” is your response to ALL of the SWEET POLITICAL ANALYSIS I have given you? I’m irritated.

And I have no idea what you’re talking it in regard to AIDS. Don’t tell me that I sound like someone else who is wrong, tell me why *I* am wrong HERE and NOW. I am not and will not be held responsible for other people’s arguments, only my own.

AB1266 as quoted does not, contrary to Sharon’s statement, legislate that sex does not exist as a distinct category. Indeed, it keeps sex as such a category in (a) to (e) of the amended legislation, that is in all parts where access to something might be removed on the basis of sex.

AB1266 only affects (f), effectively stating that “sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and … facilities” are prohibited (because they are now to segregate on something other than sex). You can disagree with prohibition of sex segregation, but the prohibition is not the same as declaring sex does not exist. There is precedent for this conclusion: when race segregation was prohibited it was not automatically declared that race does not exist (though in fact it does not exist).

The Daily Mail and Mirror that reported Ria Cooper’s “detransition” are known as the gutter press. Not a reliable source. I have researched Ria Cooper and found her own tweets on the issue:

I wanna be a girl not a boy how can people make fun about me and try and make me change back to a boy! 😦

Apparently they simply sensationalized a brief period in her life when she was tempted to submit to family pressure – in fact apparently the most common reason for detransition, judging by various detransitioning blogs. In her case, the emergence of new friends and a boyfriend supporting her has ended the period of doubt, but not before the gutter press got wind of it.

And finally, the question of “why would a boy think he is a girl” is beside the point in the legal area. Telling a person how to think is the hallmark of an authoritarian society. The boy simply does think so, and the question for the law is how to handle it and not how to change the person’s thinking. That should be a given, absence of thought crimes is a basic point or you’re on the way to the gulag. HOW to handle it is a different question.

Recognizing such thinking is not “codifying stereotypes”. Even going by your theory of why one thinks like that, it only codifies people’s right to apply stereotypes to THEMSELVES. But applying them to ANYONE ELSE (when one attempts to enforce such application) is prohibited under the “gender expression” header, with no reference to identity. Which is the part I lauded.

TL;DR – I don’t have anything to add to gender critical analysis, but I support your arguments, and the reason I’m saying so is that it seems to me that gender critical voices are being marginalised in online feminist spaces.

Thank you for this website Elizabeth, and for your excellent analysis of the likely impacts when gender identity & expression are legally protected at the expense of sex based protections.
I fail to see how any feminist who recognises the perniciously oppressive effect of socially enforced gender roles on women could have substantial disagreement with your arguments, let alone formulate a rational argument that your analyses are transphobic.

And I’m really troubled that plastic surgery to alter sexual physicial characteristics appears to be considered an acceptable first line approach in assisting gender non-conforming children and young people (I just can’t bring myself to call it treatment. While I have some personal experience with the distress that gender non conformity can bestow in a gender-organised society, how on earth is gender non-conformity a phenomenon that requires treatment with surgery?).

Seems to me that many online feminists find it easier to abandon gender criticism at the first shout of ‘transphobia’, than to be an ally of trans women while simulataneously drawing appropriate boundaries that protect females and discussion of and activism regarding female-specific oppressions.

I suppose this trend is not all that surprising if I consider the extent to which women are socialised to put the needs of males before their own, to perform emotional work on behalf of men and to validate their identity through emotional support and sexual access, and to internalise misogyny.

I can appreciate why some trans women may come to consider recognition as a woman to be necessary to their psychological well-being, and perhaps to their very survival. I’m sympathetic to people who find themselves in this situation, while rejecting their argument that they are really females born in a male body.

But for the life of me, I can’t understand how so many feminists can qualmlessly congratulate themselves on calling trans women ‘sister’ while vituperating radical feminists who are concerned at the erasure of females and female oppression.

I suppose this trend is not all that surprising if I consider the extent to which women are socialised to put the needs of males before their own, to perform emotional work on behalf of men and to validate **their** identity through emotional support and sexual access, and to internalise misogyny.

I want to apologize, wholly and sincerely. I’ve not been an active member in the trans community, mostly helping people who looked like they could use it and giving advice to those thinking about transition or working through related issues. Lately I have been trying to get to know more trans people and I realize that I am wrong about them. I myself am transsexual, and I feel this now is an important distinction to make. I am on hormones and will shortly be getting SRS, live my life as a woman and an excessively ordinary life at that. I have noticed of late that transgender individuals, people within the same large umbrella as myself, people who I have tried to support, are everything you have said they are. Before the past week I hadn’t met many trans women, and the ones I did were mostly like myself, but I have now found the vast majority are well… men.

They do not attempt to re-socialize themselves as women, they very clearly act as men do, are extremely entitled and well I don’t need to preach to the choir. I have come on here defending not all trans people as bad periodically over the years from the position of myself and my close friends, but I was wrong to do so. I apologize and you are correct. I have supported your stricter measures all along, but I mistakenly thought that current environments were not as dire as they seem to be – effects of living in a more conservative area I suppose.

Again I am sorry, and I will continue to push from within my own community that stricter standards, not more lax ones, benefit everyone. And I will do my best to help combat the entitlement and absolutely ridiculous behavior of some of my fellow trans women.

– The majority of trans women are not interested in politicized access to “female spaces” (such as Michfest or Radfem gatherings) or politicized sexual access to females (the “cotton ceiling” debacle). This stuff is the working of a few individuals. So when people (feminists or otherwise) day that they “support trans” they mostly are not thinking of these individuals.

– The majority of “trans critical” feminist sources can not be made compatible with any form of “being an ally”, operating from the fundamental premise that blames all trans people (not just the aforementioned activists) for misogyny and lots of other things. They follow the line of Janice Raymond with her “all transsexuals rape women’s bodies…”. While this particular blog is not taking the line, most others do, at least of those that have any sort of prominence.

Also, any surgery on children is a subject of unrelenting criticism and, unlike surgery on properly diagnosed adults, is not seen as acceptable by the mainstream medical community, including WPATH, the worldwide authority on transsexual treatment.

“AB1266 as quoted does not, contrary to Sharon’s statement, legislate that sex does not exist as a distinct category. Indeed, it keeps sex as such a category in (a) to (e) of the amended legislation, that is in all parts where access to something might be removed on the basis of sex. ”

Erasing sex as a distinct category by amending educational code that was historically designed to address sex based discrimination is, in my opinion, one of the most odious forms of sex discrimination that anyone could possible imagine. It’s Orwellian and deeply disturbing in its scope. As a female, I feel as if I’ve been kicked in the gut. It almost feels like a form of rape in that something is being taken from me without my permission. In all honesty, I can’t find the proper words to describe how offended I feel.

It’s rather nonsensical and extremely disingenuous to state that AB1266 doesn’t erase sex as a distinct category when sex and “gender identity” are treated as one and the same. The word category or class assumes an element of exclusion or otherness based on clearly defined characteristics or attributes. Section 221.5 (a) through (e) recognizes the fact that females are not males, and females have been historically marginalized and have been victims of discrimination. The word sex is used, and it’s understood that males and females are different. The amended (f) all but states that “gender identity” is the same thing as sex. The very definition of category or class is so twisted and convoluted that it’s all but rendered devoid of any meaningful substance. We are told AB1266 keeps sex as a distinct category, but now anyone can be part of this category by simply claiming membership. How is membership claimed? It’s based on a feeling or thought process. AB1266 is so flawed, and so utterly offensive to female students that it doesn’t even require proof that this feeling or belief is long standing or genuine. All that is required is self-identification.

For all practical purposes, AB1266 does erase sex as a distinct class. AB1266 only makes sense if we believe that biological sex is non-existent. I find it especially repugnant and offensive that Section 221.5 of the Educational Code that was historically used to address sex based discrimination is being used to strip away the privacy rights of female students, rendering sex as a distinct category meaningless. AB1266 simply makes no sense to rational people. Under Section 221.5 of the Educational Code, a female student is discriminated against if she can’t take a carpentry class, and under Section 221.5, a biological male student is discriminated against if he can’t use the girl’s restroom or locker room. Males and females are now treated as one and the same. Despite making this bold assumption, people have the utter gall to state that AB1266 doesn’t erase sex as a distinct class.

Apply the logic of AB1266 to other historical oppressed groups and see how it sounds. For example, if anyone can identify as Native American by wearing a feather, sleeping in teepees, and feeling “Indian inside”, and if there is nothing unique or special about being an indigenous person, then doesn’t this essentially throw Native identity out the window? It is all but rendered meaningless and without substance. As I’ve pointed out, a biological female can no more change her DNA than a black person or disabled person can change his or her genes. “Gender identity” is far more malleable, and research shows that many children eventually grow out of feelings of gender dysphoria as they mature.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CANNOT PROVE THAT ONE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OTHER MENTAL CONDITION, THOUGHT, OR PERCEPTION

According to the APA,

“Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity.

Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf. Gainor, 2000).”

“The term “gender identity,” distinct from the term “sexual orientation,” refers to a person’s innate, deeply felt psychological identification as male or female, which may or may not correspond to the person’s body or designated sex at birth (meaning what sex was originally listed on a person’s birth certificate).”

“Gender identity” is for all practical purposes a psychological condition, perception, or strongly held belief in that it resides in the mind. Under AB1266, it is recognized by the State of California.

PTSD because of sexual assault, rape, or childhood trauma is certainly experienced by millions of women world-wide, and it is a well established psychiatric diagnosis that is as valid as gender identity. Under AB1266, it’s not even acknowledged. Despite the fact that one in five females will be victims of sexual assault sometime in their lives, one would think that it doesn’t exist.

Why is “gender identity”, a mental condition, perception, or deeply held belief more important than PTSD from rape, sexual assault, or childhood molestation? Imagine a psychiatrist stating that depression is more important than schizophrenia, and that we will only recognize the personal experiences, emotions, and thought processes of depressed people. This sounds outrageous. However, the State of California has decided to ignore the emotions, feelings, and thoughts of females, particularly females with a history of sexual abuse who might experience extreme discomfort and trauma by having to share a locker room or restroom with a male. Even the thought of being forced to share a restroom or locker room with a male could be traumatizing for a female student.

One would imagine that the girl who was brutally gang raped in a Richmond, California school would have some degree of PTSD. Indeed, most people would say that this girl is psychologically scarred for life. What happens if this girl is triggered emotionally by the presence of males while she is using the toilet, showering, or undressing? There are hundreds, if not thousands, perhaps millions of girls in California who have experienced unimaginable childhood sexual assault, trauma, exploitation, and abuse.

If PTSD in a female due to rape, sexual assault, or childhood molestation is well documented, strong, and persistent, PTSD could be considered a disability under ADA (American with Disability Act). PTSD has been recognized as a disability under ADA. Therefore, couldn’t a female student with documented PTSD request a Reasonable Accommodation under ADA stating that using the same restroom, locker room, or shower with biological males triggers her PTSD? Therefore, she requires female only restrooms, locker rooms, and showers that exclude males. The school would be put in a rather uncomfortable position of deciding whether or not “gender identity” is more important than a documented case of PTSD. Most girls and women would naturally feel extremely awkward and embarrassed sharing a restroom or locker room with a male. Imagine how this feels to a girl who has been sexually abused, molested, or raped. Magnify this startled response and fear a hundred times, and say that it’s justice for females. It’s a travesty of justice whereby the life experiences of females are completely ignored.

Perhaps some female students don’t have a strong history of PTSD because of sexual assault or rape, but they feel extremely uncomfortable and embarrassed by being forced to change their tampon with males present. Or, an awkward teenage girl feels extremely uncomfortable with a 6’1 180 lb. male in the locker room. Who is to say that how she feels is not as important as another student’s “gender identity” which is nothing more than feeling, thought process, or mental perception itself.

The way that this legislation is worded, biological males don’t have to be on cross gender hormones or anything to reduce the level of testosterone that biological males naturally produce. Biological males will now be allowed to compete in athletic competition against females. He can identify as a girl, but when he starts puberty, he is going to have an obvious and glaring advantage over female athletes.

If schools allow athletes to take any kind of performance enhancing drugs, this would be viewed as unethical and fundamentally unfair. Students should be taught fair play and any type of cheating dishonors not only the individual student, but the school and sport itself. Steroid use wouldn’t be allowed because this creates an unfair advantage. After puberty, males naturally produce testosterone which increases muscle mass and strength. It’s ludicrous on its face and grossly unfair for adolescent boys to compete against females.

“And finally, the question of “why would a boy think he is a girl” is beside the point in the legal area. Telling a person how to think is the hallmark of an authoritarian society. The boy simply does think so, and the question for the law is how to handle it and not how to change the person’s thinking.”

People can believe whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean it’s true, and people and society in general don’t have to accommodate each and every individual’s personal beliefs. Indeed, we would live in a chaotic world if this was applied to everyone.

“AB1266 only affects (f), effectively stating that “sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and … facilities” are prohibited (because they are now to segregate on something other than sex). You can disagree with prohibition of sex segregation, but the prohibition is not the same as declaring sex does not exist. There is precedent for this conclusion: when race segregation was prohibited it was not automatically declared that race does not exist (though in fact it does not exist). ”

What exactly does “facilities” are prohibited (because they are now to segregate on something other than sex). mean First of all, what exactly is this “something other than sex” when the State of California doesn’t even have a precise definition of “gender identity” other than how an individual student identifies. No proof is required that this “something other than sex” is authentic, persistent, or deeply felt. Second, why does the State of California automatically assume that it no longer has any interest in recognizing sex segregated facilities such as restrooms, locker rooms, and showers? This is rather a bold assumption. Are we to assume that the state can casually strip away the privacy rights of female students without any just cause? We are talking about centuries of customs and practices recognizing the privacy needs of females being swept away with one sentence.

Sharon: People can believe whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean it’s true, and people and society in general don’t have to accommodate each and every individual’s personal beliefs.

My deeply held beliefs are totally at odds with the society around me; for that I am marginalized and I accept my marginalization. Every day in every way my society tells me what to think; I don’t know where ramendik lives, but it’s apparently in a better world that the one I live in. One beliefs and thoughts do not have the right to invalidate others’ experience, unless that experience is one of oppression and exploitation. It is absurd to suggest that female-only spaces are examples of oppression and exploitation.

“Also, any surgery on children is a subject of unrelenting criticism and, unlike surgery on properly diagnosed adults, is not seen as acceptable by the mainstream medical community, including WPATH, the worldwide authority on transsexual treatment.”

In all honesty, I could care less what WPATH says because it’s irrelevant to what is actually happening. Who listens to WPATH when pharmaceutical companies can make more money by pushing drugs on children? Please don’t talk about WPATH because I’m more concerned with how children are being drugged, and the increase in the number of “transgender” children. Are there really 5 year old “transgender children”. Simply go to Trans Kids Purple Rainbow. We are told that “Jazz was born with Gender Identity Disorder, and diagnosed at age 3” Who diagnosed a 3 three year old kid with “Gender Identity Disorder”? Did he prefer the pink blanket to the blue blanket? I certainly am opposed to GnRH agonists being prescribed for what basically amounts to a psychiatric diagnosis in children. I definitely am opposed to cross gender hormones being administered to 16 year old children. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen because we know it’s going on.

The transgender community pushes GnRH agonists on “gender dysphoric” children. We know it’s happening, so why do people continue to deny it? GnRH agonists were originally used to treat hormone sensitive prostate cancer in men and endometriosis. They block the hormones that stimulate hormone growth and spur the growth of endometrial tissue. They are also used to treat precocious puberty (puberty when kids shouldn’t normally go through puberty). Precocious puberty is NOT the same thing as transgender. Here is a link from the Mayo Clinic.

For precocious puberty, some doctors use the Supprelin implant (another GnRH agonist).

By the way, in the U.S. these drugs are very expensive. I don’t know how expensive they are in other countries, but in the U.S. Big Pharma really sticks it to people. There is so much more money involved by pushing these drugs on children when they are young. GnRH agonists (puberty suppression) followed by cross gender hormones at age 16. At 18, the plastic surgeons get their money, and Big Pharma just keeps on handing out the hormones for life. A life long regimen of drugs because of what basically amounts to a socially prescribed cure for kids that just don’t fit neatly into sex based stereotypes.

There is another rather inconvenient fact that the transgender community and the doctors who push theses drugs don’t tell people. Depending on where you live, cross gender hormones can start at age 16. Some children go straight from the puberty suppressing drugs to cross gender hormones. If cross gender hormones are given right after GnRH agonists, future fertility can be compromised. They know this. We are talking about possibly sterilizing children. Do parents have the right to jeopardize the future fertility of their children?

In a recent video, Jazz who was “diagnosed” at age 3 is now on puberty suppressing drugs.

I was reading through WPATH, and they push GnRH agonists too. However, I can’t find anything in WPATH, the Holy Grail itself, about side effects of Lupron. All those people in the online petition to Congress to discontinue this drug must all be lying or confused. I’m still reading, but I haven’t come across anything that says that puberty suppressing drugs followed by cross gender hormones can effect future fertility. Apparently, there are no ethical issues involved in sterilizing children.

Bull crap that WPATH says about intentionally delaying a normal stage of human development because of a questionable label slapped on a kid by some “gender therapist”. I call it bull crap because that is what it is.

Criteria for Puberty-Suppressing Hormones

In order for adolescents to receive puberty suppressing hormones, the following minimum
criteria must be met:

1. The adolescent has demonstrated a long lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity
or gender dysphoria (whether suppressed or expressed); (**how the hell do they prove this?)
2. Gender dysphoria emerged or worsened with the onset of puberty; (**puberty is rarely easy for any child, and how can they prove it worsened because of puberty)
3. Any coexisting psychological, medical, or social problems that could interfere
with treatment (e.g., that may compromise treatment adherence) have been addressed,
such that the adolescent’s situation and functioning are stable enough to start
treatment;
4. The adolescent has given informed consent and, particularly when the adolescent has
not reached the age of medical consent, the parents or other caretakers or guardians
have consented to the treatment and are involved in supporting the adolescent throughout the treatment process. (this assumes teenagers are capable of making informed decisions)

Deliberate delaying a normal part of human development, adolescence, because of what basically amounts to a questionable psychiatric diagnosis in healthy children assumes all the following:

(a.) The diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” is correct to being with, and there isn’t something else going on in the child’s life.

(b.) The child is completely free from any parental, peer, or cultural influences. How much is “gender dysphoria” in a 12 year old child, and how do we separate this from everything the parents read on transgender websites and blogs? How much is actual “gender dysphoria” or GID and how much is parental discomfort at having a child that doesn’t fit neatly into sex based gender roles?

(c.) Children have the mental capacity to decide or choose for themselves.

It’s a scientific fact that the pre-frontal cortex of the human brain which is sometimes called the judgment center of the brain isn’t fully developed until the early to mid-twenties.

”The prefrontal cortex, the part of the frontal lobes lying just behind the forehead, is often referred to as the “CEO of the brain.” This brain region is responsible for cognitive analysis and abstract thought, and the moderation of “correct” behavior in social situations. The prefrontal cortex takes in information from all of the senses and orchestrates thoughts and actions to achieve specific goals. This brain region gives an individual the capacity to exercise “good judgment” when presented with difficult life situations. Brain research indicating that brain development is not complete until near the age of 25, refers specifically to the development of the prefrontal cortex”

These children might feel different because adolescence is a tumultuous time for all children, but this doesn’t mean that they have the maturity or judgment to make informed decisions. Any kid who feels different is going to be depressed. There is a lot of research that says gay and lesbian teenagers also have high rates of suicide and depression. Why aren’t people drugging these kids? Wait, they already have a way to “cure” these kids. It’s called “transitioning”, and we know it’s happening. Gay and lesbian eugenics is another issue that people aren’t allowed to discuss.

I agree with Sharon about WPATH. It is essentially a lobbyist group. It is not independent or reliable. Indeed, a related group (Global Action for Trans Equality) convened earlier this year essentially because WPATH isn’t critical enough and didn’t take the following concerns seriously enough:

“The reasoning with regard to the proposed GIC diagnosis is based on the following concerns:
First, there is no clear consensus among researchers and health care providers with regard to the need for or global applicability of such a diagnosis.11

Second, gender variance in childhood does not require any medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgical procedures. Rather, children need information and support in exploring their gender identity and expression and dealing with sociocultural environments that are frequently hostile to gender variance.

Third, attaching a medical diagnosis to gender diversity in childhood contradicts WHO’s commitment to respecting rather than pathologizing sexual diversity. Specifically, research
indicates it is impossible to reliably distinguish between a gender-variant child who will grow up to become trans and a gender-variant child who will grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, but not trans.12 As such, by conflating gender variance and sexual orientation, the proposed GIC category amounts to a re-pathologization of homosexuality.”

Mikhail, I know the difference between identity and expression. Please, no man-splaining. This distinction is a favorite of the trans lobby, but I consider it IRRELEVANT We are dealing with the SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES of pretending to change both your biological sex and your corresponding social class status. Expression is what external observers perceive for the purpose of discrimination and trageting. I’ve been saying this since before “A feminist critique of cisgender:” magical unicorn I’m-a-furry thoughts mean NOTHING to me. Nothing at all. Go on with your delusions, but don’t expect me to play along. This isn’t theater.

You know, I’ve always wanted to write a post about that book “Black Like Me” and explain why Griffin is NOT BLACK and never was and never will be. Same for transowmen. You may act as a tourist in our world, but it is NEVER truly yours.

Now, Mikhail, on what basis do you accept that women are entitled to sex-segregated spaces when nudity is expected as a matter of course? You have not said on what basis you concede this point: privacy (social cusotm, lol)? Substantial risk of male violence? Do tell. Thank you.

(As of September 16th) “A Statement of Trans-Inclusive Feminism and Womanism’ at feministsfightingtransphobia:

“Most importantly, we recognize that theories are not more important than real people’s real lives; we reject any theory of gender, sex, or sexuality that calls on us to sacrifice the needs of any subjugated or marginalized group. People are more important than theory.”

Answering the question. I believe that people of both sexes (sic – it is not specifically about women) are entitled to sex segregated spaces when nudity is expected as a matter of course because for many people interaction with the other sex when nude has a sexual overtone, and prevention of unwanted sexual interaction is something quite important.

This is the primary reason. Violence has less to do with it because, frankly, a thin layer of clothes does little to stop violence, so if one wanted to stop male violence against women by segregation, one would end up with a Sharia style sex segregated world. Yes, SOME places of public nudity are also relatively empty so an easier spot for violence – but if empty and thus dangerous places are to be sex-segregated, one would sex-segregate night bus stops. Social segregation is not a viable answer to violence, but the option of segregation becomes necessary when rife sexualization is the only alternative.

I would say that the case of PTSD of rape survivors, described in Sharon’s comment, is included; the actual trigger would not be the presence of a male (for some it would, but then perhaps a convent or other female-only community is the best solution) nor even the physical nakedness of the male but the implied suspicion that the male sees the survivor as a sexual object.

Sexuality is naturally private, I would say that this particular part of privacy goes deeper than social custom (unlike the Western extensive understanding of privacy).

On some other points:

– I posit that recognition of classes is not something the law should generally do EXCEPT to prohibit discrimination or segregation. That is exactly what AB1266 does, with (a)-(e) prohibiting discrimination based on sex and (f) effectively prohibiting segregation based on same. It can be argued that (f) goes too far and some categories of places and institutions it desegregates should remain segregated.

– In regards to Native American identity, in my view its recognition by law was an entirely tragic occurrence for decades, namely from 1868 to 1924. If Native Americans, or as they were called in the law of the time “Indians”, were not recognized as a category and seen simply as people, the Fourteenth Amendment would have granted them full citizenship as soon as any tribal territory is made a part of the United States. Because of the legal fiction of “Indian nations” or what not, rampant legal oppression continued until the Indian Citizenship Act. So, yes, the law should NOT have had that class to start with, let alone try to define it and whoever can identify with it. I don’t know enough of the modern American situation to judge whether its recognition has any positive effect at all now. In principle it should only be a matter for tribal organizations, not the state.

– Griffin can not “be black” because race does not exist nor, to my knowledge, did he claim it does. He decided to observe a group that was irrationally discriminated based on an arbitrary characteristic, skin colour. He disguised himself to have a darker skin colour in order to observe the discrimination. “Black like me”, again to my knowledge, refers to him experiencing the discrimination. There is nothing more to it. (Unless the reviewers I read swept it under the carpet).

– The reason I stress the “expression” part is because it has (at least in California) a very clear definition with little wiggle room, and because within the current legal system it seems to be the most promising LEGISLATIVE way of protecting both transgender people and people who do not conform to gender norms without being transgender. This is about the legal part only. I do not like the “sex discrimination alone” idea of protecting gender non-conforming people because it is a judicial approach and thus at risk for variations in court trends. Legislation is safer.

– “Go on with your delusions, but don’t expect me to play along”. Works just fine for a private citizen (and you are one, except when acting as a lawyer). Does not work within public regulated activity, does not work with government agents. There, rules exist that do not allow people to dictate to others regarding their “delusion”. And erosion of such rules won’t do any good for anyone – least of all anyone holding any minority view, including radical feminists.

– “Social consequences” of “pretending to change sex” (when we are not talking about nudity or, arguably, sexual interaction) do not have a particular victim, the worst you can claim is a general contribution to stereotyping in society, which is drowned out by nearly any single Hollywood flick. But consequences of disallowing such “pretending”, or of allowing public discrimination for it, are dire for specific individuals. The balance of consequences appears rather clear. I am all for balance when we are talking about the interests of some particular females vs. those of trans people. But using “general consequences” (especially ones rather negligible in comparison to other factors) to suppress, or permit suppression, of individuals is simply not on. It is the road to totalitarianism.

“Most importantly, we recognize that theories are not more important than real people’s real lives; we reject any theory of gender, sex, or sexuality that calls on us to sacrifice the needs of any subjugated or marginalized group. People are more important than theory.”

Sacrificing the NEEDS and lived material realities of female humans in favor of “gender identity” theory is invisible because they say it is.

The “group” part in the conference’s formula is really unfortunate, in my view. I suspect what they wanted to say is that no theory should be used as an excuse to cause undue hardship on actual human beings who experience subjugation or marginalization.

For example, that the theory that “allowing trans people to present as the opposite sex and be recognized as such socially increases the hold of gender stereotypes on society” should not be used to restrict such people, because the needs of people are real and visible, while theoretical impact is not (it only “contributes to a pool” of influences on a long standing social issue).

However, by using the “group needs” language, they have opened themselves to exactly this kind of criticism. This happens because only a person can have needs. Group needs are, at the end of the day, not an independent reality, but a sum of individual needs; once that fundamental fact is forgotten, any self-appointed leaders can conflate their theory with actual needs of all people in a huge group (as Communists did for workers or Ayn Rand’s fans did for business people).

Trans people, of all people, should recognize the importance of individual difference from groups. Most of them do, earning “special snowflake” slurs from collectivists of all kinds. This conference seems to be an unfortunate exception, or else they just used a formula without thinking.

There does have to be a balance when actual material realities are involved – but not when the “needs” are mere custom. For example, if at a workplace there is a trans woman and a born woman who is triggered penis in the bathroom, accommodation is required that would prevent them having to use the same bathroom. But if a born woman is simply uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex at work and interacting with preferred pronouns, I would say this is NOT a need for balance but a need for someone to respect diversity.

“I posit that recognition of classes is not something the law should generally do EXCEPT to prohibit discrimination or segregation. That is exactly what AB1266 does, with (a)-(e) prohibiting discrimination based on sex and (f) effectively prohibiting segregation based on same.”

I posit that amending state educational code that was historically designed to address sex based discrimination by erasing sex as a distinct category, rendering female students as invisible non-persons devoid of any history, substance, or merit is tantamount to sex discrimination on its face. Indeed, it could very well be the most odious form of sex discrimination.

Section 221.5 (a.) through (e) prohibits discrimination for all students, and (f) is unnecessary, seriously flawed, erases female as a distinct class, and tramples on the privacy rights of females. Under Section (a) through (e), gender non-conforming males who are bit on the effeminate side can take classes that are stereotypically associated with girls, such as typing class, home making, sewing, etc. Girls and boys can take any class that they choose.

AB1266 is so flawed that it requires no proof whatsoever that “gender identity” is persistent or genuinely felt. Section 221.5 (a) through (e) uses the word sex, so the state recognizes that sex does exist, or has existed, and under (f), “gender identity” is used, so it does appear that the state is saying that sex and “gender identity” are one and the same. When did this happen? We know it’s not true, and even if it were true, the state has not met its burden of proof by showing that sex and “gender identity” are clearly one and the same. The state doesn’t even have a precise definition of “gender identity”.

“That is exactly what AB1266 does, with (a)-(e) prohibiting discrimination based on sex and (f) effectively prohibiting segregation based on same.”

What does this individual mean when he or she says, “based on same”? There is no “based on the same”. Is this person saying that sex and “gender identity” are one and the same? If sex and “gender identity” are one and the same, why doesn’t the State of California just come out and say so in clear terms that people can understand? I guess it would go like this. From now on, biological sex is the exact same thing as “gender identity”. XX, female reproductive system… “gender identity”…XY, testicles and a penis, produces sperm….”gender identity”. The State of California says this is the way it is from now on. Never mind the fact that under AB1266 no proof is required other than how a student says he or she feels. They don’t even have to get a letter from a therapist.

I know this is hard for some people to understand, but here goes. About the only living organisms that can change their sex are some species of fish. In some reptiles, temperature dictates sex. Earth worms and slugs are hermaphrodites. HUMANS LIKE ALL PRIMATES REPRODUCE SEXUALLY. Even in vitro fertilization is a form of sexual reproduction. PRIMATES AND MAMMALS DO NOT CHANGE THEIR SEX. ALL PRIMATES ARE ABOUT 99% SIMILAR. How genetically similar are fish, flat works, or slugs to humans? When you can show me a clown fish (a species of fish that can change sex), that can type or drive a car, I’ll go along with the idea that biological sex is the same thing as “gender identity”.

Please do not bring up disorders of sexual development (intersex) because this has been covered at great length before. Contrary to what transgender activists would have us believe, biological sex exists. It’s a fact that human beings are male, female, or rare disorders of sexual development. All primates reproduce sexually. Every time someone points this out, people quickly point to rare intersex medical conditions as if transgender is the same as disorders of sexual development. I want to lay this subject to rest once and for all. Perhaps to confuse people and muddy the water, some transgender activists intentionally compare rare DSD with transgender. It’s possible for an intersex individual to identify as transgender, but they are not one and the same. Transgender is largely socially constructed. TRANSGENDER IS NOT THE SAME AS DISORDERS OF SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT. The vast majority of transgender identified individuals are either biological male or biological female with NO an actual intersex medical condition. Before sex reassignment surgery, many transsexuals have children, and some even have children after legally changing their sex. In fact, Thomas Beatie, the ‘pregnant man’ FTM GAVE BIRTH TO THREE CHILDREN AFTER LEGALLY CHANGING HER SEX TO MALE. SHE KEPT HER OVARIES AND UTERUS SO THAT SHE COULD GET PREGNANT. STILL, SHE IS A “MAN”. MANY MTFS MARRY WOMEN AND FATHER CHILDREN BEFORE “TRANSITIONING”. These are examples of biological females and biological males procreating like all other males and females. Individuals who have disorders of sexual development are often infertile, and they can have ambiguous genitalia. Disorders of sexual development are actual genetic or medical conditions. Disorders of sexual development can be diagnosed with genetic or medical testing whereas transgender is essentially in one’s mind, and thus at least partially culturally defined. Does the existence of DSD mean that biological sex does not exist? No, it does not. DSD arise from sexual reproduction as does male and female. Rare disorders of sexual development are another issue, and perhaps these individuals should be considered on a case by case basis. This is an entirely different subject, and my focus is on biological males using female restrooms and competing against girls in athletic competition.

DSD (Differences/Disorders of Sex Development) is a group of conditions (also known as intersex, and often genetically determined) that affect the reproductive and genito-urinary development of a baby in the womb. Most major intersex organizations make a distinction between transgender and DSD.

The Intersex Society of North America states,

“People who identify as transgender or transsexual are usually people who are born with typical male or female anatomies but feel as though they’ve been born into the “wrong body.” For example, a person who identifies as transgender or transsexual may have typical female anatomy but feel like a male and seek to become male by taking hormones or electing to have sex reassignment surgeries…People who have intersex conditions have anatomy that is not considered typically male or female. Most people with intersex conditions come to medical attention because doctors or parents notice something unusual about their bodies. In contrast, people who are transgendered have an internal experience of gender identity that is different from most people.”

No. Transgender refers to a situation in which a person feels that the gender assigned to that person at birth (boy or girl) was not the right one for him or her. DSD is about physical sex development (how a person’s body formed), not about gender identity (who a person feels himself or herself to be).”

Ambiguous genitalia and infertility are not the only health concerns associated with DSD.

“If a child is born with atypical genitals (meaning genitals different from typical male or female genitals), clinicians will want to make absolutely sure that the child is tested to see if the atypical genitals have been caused by Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). CAH is a condition that can sometimes involve a metabolic problem called “salt-losing,” and a newborn with a salt-losing form of CAH can become very sick or even die if the child does not receive proper medical care. In such a circumstance, the atypical genitals essentially constitute a symptom of a serious medical problem (CAH). (Incidentally, children born with typical-looking genitals can also have CAH, which is why most states now have mandatory newborn screening for CAH.)… If a child is born with atypical genitals, clinicians will also want to make sure that the child’s urinary drainage system is working correctly. This can help determine if a child is at an unusually high risk for urinary tract infections. The clinicians may also see whether there are any problems with the child’s reproductive organs that might need attention now or in the future to increase the child’s chances of fertility in adulthood.”

When it’s clear that the student is a biological male with male genitalia, using the same restroom or locker room with a female student would create an unsafe and extremely uncomfortable situation for a girl. It simply isn’t fair to female students.

The State of California might believe that “gender identity” and biological sex are one and the same, but the World Health Organization is more realistic.

“What do we mean by “sex” and “gender”?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term “gender”, and how it differs from the closely related term “sex”.

“Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

“Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

“Male” and “female” are sex categories, while “masculine” and “feminine” are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.”

“There does have to be a balance when actual material realities are involved – but not when the “needs” are mere custom. For example, if at a workplace there is a trans woman and a born woman who is triggered penis in the bathroom, accommodation is required that would prevent them having to use the same bathroom. But if a born woman is simply uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex at work and interacting with preferred pronouns, I would say this is NOT a need for balance but a need for someone to respect diversity.

I just love this paragraph. If it weren’t such a serious subject, it would be hilarious. Please note what this individual says,

“For example, if at a workplace there is a trans woman and a born woman who is triggered penis in the bathroom, accommodation is required that would prevent them having to use the same bathroom….But if a born woman is simply uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex at work and interacting with preferred pronouns, I would say this is NOT a need for balance but a need for someone to respect diversity”

Is this individual saying that (1.) women have a penis, and (2.) if certain females might be triggered by a penis in a women’s restroom, accommodation should be made, but other women just have to look at his wanker?

I love the way that this person phrases things in order to side step the reality of what is actually happening. The following sentence about sums it up. For example,

“But if a born woman is simply uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex at work and interacting with preferred pronouns.”

Please read this again, “uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex”. Yes, they really said, “uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex”. Women don’t want to see the guy’s penis. They feel uncomfortable with a 6 foot man in a dress in the women’s restroom or locker room. They don’t want him peeing on the toilet sink. Women sure as hell don’t want registered transgender sex offenders like Paul (Paula) Witherspoon or cross dressing Thomas Lee Benson in the women’s restroom or locker room. Both dressed as women, Withersoon and Benson were caught using women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

I pose this question.

When one if five women have been victims of rape, sexual assault, or incest, how can the “transwoman” with male genitalia supposed to tell which women will be triggered and which ones won’t. In most states with “gender identity” laws, actual sex reassignment surgery isn’t necessary. Many transwomen (biological males who identify as transgender) still have intact male genitalia. Google Colleen Francis.

What if they are ALL triggered by male genitalia in the women’s restroom or locker room? I have a great idea. Why not ask women if the are sufficiently “triggered”? If she says yes, then leave. After all, male genitalia are far more suited for a urinal, and there is no reason why a male can’t use the men’s room.

Also, I would like to pose another question:

If a male employee routinely walked into a women’s restroom and exposed his genitalia, could this be construed as sexual harassment in that it creates a hostile and threatening environment for female employees?

“There does have to be a balance when actual material realities are involved – but not when the “needs” are mere custom.”

This is so insulting to girls and women that I don’t know where to start.

Based on rape and sexual assault statistics alone, females have a clear historical reason to be naturally suspicious of any male invading their personal space, and girls and women are most vulnerable when they are using a toilet, showering, or undressing. Stating that the vast majority of sex offenders are male is a fact.

FACT: MOST RAPIST ARE MALE

FACT: PARAPHILIA IS FAR MORE COMMON IN MALES

Center for Sex Offender Management
A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Female Sex Offenders

March 2007

National criminal justice statistics reveal that of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities for sex crimes, females account for less than 10% of these cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for other sex offenses.

In contrast to the approximately 140,000 men incarcerated in prisons nationwide for sex crimes, only 1,500 women are estimated to be imprisoned for these offenses (Harrison & Beck, 2005). They represent only 1% of all adults incarcerated for sex offenses, and 2% of all females in prison. Similarly, adolescent girls represent only 2% of the roughly 7,500 sex offenders placed in juvenile residential facilities nationwide, and they account for only 1% of all girls in residential placements (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

We know that males are more likely to be registered sex offenders, and we also know that nearly one in five women have been victims of rape or sexual assault at some time in their lives.

• Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.
• A 2011 survey of high school students found that 11.8% of girls and 4.5% of boys from grades 9-12 reported that they were forced to have sexual intercourse at some time in their lives.
• 42.2% of female rape victims were first raped before age 18.
• 29.9% of female rape victims were first raped between the ages of 11-17.

“More than a third of sex crimes against juveniles are committed by juveniles, according to new research commissioned by the Justice Department.

Juveniles are 36% of all sex offenders who victimize children. Seven out of eight are at least 12 years old, and 93% are boys, says the study by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. ”

“A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities …and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.”

Does this include juvenile sex offenders? AB1266 states “a pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex segregated school programs and activities.”

“A pupil” would include any pupil whether or not the pupil is a juvenile sex offender. There are juvenile males who have raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed girls. There are even examples of this occurring in California schools. So, if any of the boys who brutally gang raped the girl at a school in Richmond, California say they are “girls”, does this mean they can use a girl’s restroom? I don’t think anyone will know exactly how many boys were involved in sexually assaulting this young woman.

People are already trying to get a referendum going. I’m a life long Democrat/Green, and I’m far from conservative. Indeed, I voted for Obama twice, and even get email from the Sierra Club. I was even a card carrying member of the ACLU once. While it’s true that some conservative groups support http://privacyforallstudents.com/, any parent, student, or concerned citizen can get involved.

***Only voters currently registered in California may sign the petition***

IF YOU ARE A REGISTERED VOTER IN CALIFORNIA, PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION.

AB 1266 has been chaptered, but does not take effect until January 1, 2014. However, a referendum has been filed by the Privacy For All Students coalition to give voters the right to reject the law. If the referendum qualifies for the ballot, AB 1266 will be suspended until voters decide whether to approve or reject it.

What is a referendum?

A referendum is a specific legal process that gives voters the right to approve or reject legislation. Once a referendum is qualified for the ballot, the legislation is suspended and does not take effect until voters approve or reject it.

Current law prohibits discrimination against transgender identified students.

“It is important to note that Education Code section 220 currently prohibits discrimination in the schools based on actual or perceived disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or one’s association with individuals with those characteristics. Therefore, transgender students are currently protected against discrimination in the schools, and complaint procedures are in place at the school district, state and federal levels to address allegations of bullying or other discrimination against transgender students.”

“(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

It’s a one size fits all approach that is wide open for abuse. There are no safeguards or rules put in place. AB1266 seriously threatens the privacy rights of female students. Their concerns are not even addressed It really upsets me that they have the audacity to tack on these 37 words to the end of Section 221.5 of the Educational Code that was specifically created to prohibit discrimination based on sex. Section 221.5 (a) through (e) uses the word sex, and then (f) all but says that biological sex doesn’t exist. In essence, they are erasing sex as a distinct class by amending the Educational Code meant to prohibit sex based discrimination.

– My words about a born woman “simply uncomfortable seeing presentation not matching birth sex at work and interacting with preferred pronouns” referred to general workplace interaction and not to toilets. What I was saying is that OUTSIDE of the toilet question, in any interactions NOT involving nudity, a born woman’s (or man’s) discomfort with someone’s transgender presentation (whether customary or based on radical feminist thought) is not a valid consideration in regulated public transactions including work.

– AB 1266 removes sex as a class SPECIFICALLY FOR SEGREGATION PURPOSES. It says that any facilities purportedly segregated by sex are now not segregated by sex. While the practical consequences can be debated, it is completely clear that prohibition of sex SEGREGATION does not mean declaration that sex does not exist – only that you can not segregate by it. It does NOT make anyone a “non-person with no history” because segregation can not be a continuing basis for anyone’s personhood or history, and the text only applies to segregation.

“I AB 1266 removes sex as a class SPECIFICALLY FOR SEGREGATION PURPOSES. It says that any facilities purportedly segregated by sex are now not segregated by sex ”

“facilities purportedly segregated by sex are now not segregated by sex ”

In other words, if a sixteen year old female doesn’t want to share a locker room, restroom, or shower with a 6′ 180 lb. biological male, it’s too bad. HIS RIGHTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU.. None of this is very complicated. The nonsense will only stop when the politicians who voted for this are booted from office. It can be down. Women out number transgender, and we have far more voting power. Trans activists might fool some women, but they can’t fool all of us. There is no way in hell Obama would have won twice without the women’s vote.. See how well the GLBT does with Republicans in the White House and in control of the Senate and Congress.

The Democrats are going to have to ask themselves how much of the women’s vote are they willing to lose. Besides, this is just another reasons for parents to yank their kids from public schools, and it’s no secret that the Democrats get a lot of money from the teacher’s unions. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the Democrats will rue the day that took on this issue. Indeed, the Democrats are starting to treat transgender “bathroom bills” as toxic.

This is going to be an extremely bitter political fight, and NEVER assume that women will easily give up our restrooms. This fight will drag on forever. This is going to be a bare knuckle political brawl, and in the end, THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF FEMALES WILL BE PREVAIL.

“AB 1266 removes sex as a class SPECIFICALLY FOR SEGREGATION PURPOSES. It says that any facilities purportedly segregated by sex are now not segregated by sex. While the practical consequences can be debated, it is completely clear that prohibition of sex SEGREGATION does not mean declaration that sex does not exist – only that you can not segregate by it. It does NOT make anyone a “non-person with no history” because segregation can not be a continuing basis for anyone’s personhood or history, and the text only applies to segregation.”

Female students being extremely embarrassed not wanting to share a locker room, shower, or restroom with a teenage boy have MORE TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PRIVACY THAN “SEGREGATION PURPOSES” .

INTIMATE AND PERSONAL PRIVACY CONCERNS OF TEENAGE GIRLS WHO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE CHANGING THEIR TAMPON WITH A BOY SITTING IN THE NEXT STALL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH “SEGREGATION PURPOSES”.

Question to Mikhail
You say it doesn’t matter why e.g.the boy feels or thinks that he is a girl, the question for the state is how to deal with this.

Surely it is quite sufficient for the state to outlaw all discrimation based on gender stereotypical behavior (e.g. wearing a dress, wearing make-up, etc) and to prevent all discrimation which would prevent the boy from being admitted to any class, profession based on any such gender stereotypes (e.g. refusal of admission to e.g. a needlework class in school because of some stereotype that this is a “girl’s” pursuit), while retaining distinctions based on biological sex where necessary e.g. in relation to bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports?

Please familiarize yourself with the blog's content before commenting. All comments are moderated. Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required)(Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )